REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.    852       OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5908 of 2007)

Sanjeet Kumar ….Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar & Anr. ….Respondents                

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the  

Patna High Court allowing the petition filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure,  1973 (in  short  ‘Code’).  The petition  was filed  by  the  respondent  no.2.  In  the  

petition challenge was to the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  

Chapra  in  Trial  No.286  of  2003.   The  petition  filed  by  the  present  respondent  no.2  for  

discharge under Section 245 of the Code was rejected.  The stand of the applicant before the  

High  Court  was that  as  a  counter  blast  to  certain  incidents,  the  petition  had  been  filed  

belatedly.  The present appellant opposed the petition taking the stand that ultimately it was a  

question of defence and could not have been agitated in an application under Section 482 of  

the Code.

3. The High Court noted that  on the basis of the complaint lodged by the present  

respondent no.2 charge sheet had been filed.  According to him, the original occurrence took  

place on 5.5.2000 and the complaint was filed after a week as a counter blast.  The High Court  

by practically a non-reasoned order has allowed the application filed in terms of Section 482  

of the Code.  It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that ultimately what the High  

Court has done is to consider the possible defence which is beyond the scope of consideration  

under Section 482 of the Code.     

4. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State has a very limited role to  

play in a complaint case.

6. We find that the High Court has only referred to the respective stand of the parties  

and has come to an abrupt conclusion that since the complaint case was filed after filing of the  

police case by the present respondent no.2, it was filed with ulterior and oblique motive.  That  

certainly is not the way to deal with an application under Section 482 of the Code.

7. The parameters where exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code  

can be exercised either on proof of abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the  

ends of justice have been highlighted in several cases. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan  

Lal and Ors.   (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), it was held that though it will not be possible to lay  

down any precise,  clearly defined sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid  

formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be  

exercised, certain illustrative cases were indicated.  They are as follows:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if  they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute  any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,  accompanying  the  FIR do not  disclose a  cognizabe offence,  justifying an investigation  by  police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within  the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where  the  uncontroverted  allegations  made  in  the  FIR  or  complaint  and  the  evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and  make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where,  the  allegations  in  the  FIR  do  not  constitute  a  cognizable  offence  but  constitute  only  a  non-cognizable offence,  no  investigation  is  permitted  by  a  police  officer  without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently  improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that  there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.   

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or  the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)  to the institution and  continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the  concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where  the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the  accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

8. A note of caution was indicated in the following words:

“103.  We also give a note  of  caution  to  the  effect  that  the  power of quashing  a criminal  proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the  rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the  reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and  that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court  to act according to its whim or caprice.”   

9. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit  

the matter for a fresh consideration in accordance with law keeping in view the parameters of  

Section 482 of the Code.  

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

.........................J.    (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.......................J.     (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, April 27, 2009